Greetings! It's week 8, and therefore this blog will soon be coming to a close. But don't fret! I still have a few weeks' worth of posting left, and this week it is regarding one of the most overlooked topics in American society: the Arts!
The chapter on advocacy was weird to me because I thought that putting advocacy organizations into only three categories (one of which was labeled "other") was far too broad. With such a wide latitude given to define organizations, I feel that many organizations may be slipping under the cracks when they would normally be defined as unethical.
I was interested by the first additional reading given to us, because it really rings true to why nonprofit organizations are so attractive: their tradition in serving America makes people want to participate. It's also true that hardly any aspects of American life have not been touched by nonprofit organizations in order to improve their quality.
The second reading regarding the Oregon Attorney General's efforts to publicize questionable charities interested me because I like how there are plans to make tax deductible charities be accountable for their fund raising reports, and that they adhere to the rules. But when I read Senate Bill 40, I did not realize that the majority of these unethical charities are headquartered by people out-of-state.
Moving on to Laurence Arnold's article on how the Arts pumped $166 billion into the US economy in 2005, I think it is very important that the arts are promoted by the American government, as they are as important as sciences, social sciences, and athletics to society. The Arts sector is very important because through paying taxes as organizations, charging patrons for events, and development of artistic abilities in people. It's important that the arts are promoted, because this sector (linked with others) can be directly tied to development of some awesome things- sustainable, attractive architecture, amazing parks that bring a community together, and beautification of once-unappealing structures and locales. There is much to say for the arts and what it can do for the American spirit.
Finally, the article about poetry giving teens a voice struck me as interesting because it seems that poetry is giving these students and outlet to voice their discontent with society (family troubles, school, relationship problems etc.) It makes it more acceptable and understandable for these children of poverty to speak their mind, and teaches them valuable leadership skills.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Post 6, yo
So, education. It is obviously very important to me.
Students from for-profit educational institutions are way more likely to default on loans, as shown here.
I was greatly interested in the first online reading because I believe that for-profit colleges such as University of Phoenix and Devry University are quackeries in the fact that many colleges are no longer accepting their credits for transfer from those schools. After checking the University of Phoenix's Wikipedia page, I found out that the school was fined $6 million in 2000 for not including study group meetings as part of their curriculum. And later, in 2010, the Phoenix and Philadelphia branches were found to be engaging in deceptive enrollment practices and fraudulent solicitation of FAFSA funds.
It hurts to see that people of lower socioeconomic statuses are being hooked into these forms of education, because we can see through the reading "Education Trust Subprime Report" that fewer than 75% of for-profit universities' students graduate within four years. If that were a statistic displayed by a non-profit or public educational institution, no one would bother to attend.
Finally, seeing all of the student debt amassed by students after having attended a for-profit institution of higher education makes me think that these places are black holes swallowing money that will never be seen or circulated again
Moving on to "For Profit Education Bubble Burst," I will admit I was unaware that the military education benefit was going towards for-profit schools. The reading explains that only 25% or so alumni from for-profit universities were paying off their student loans, versus 45% of students from non-profit universities.
It appears to me over the long run that for-profit schools have a very conservative, neo-liberal attitude about them: run a school like a business, let each do its own thing, and the students will flourish. The only problem with this that when run as businesses, many people will try harder to gain profits than educate the people enrolled in the schools.
Students from for-profit educational institutions are way more likely to default on loans, as shown here.
I was greatly interested in the first online reading because I believe that for-profit colleges such as University of Phoenix and Devry University are quackeries in the fact that many colleges are no longer accepting their credits for transfer from those schools. After checking the University of Phoenix's Wikipedia page, I found out that the school was fined $6 million in 2000 for not including study group meetings as part of their curriculum. And later, in 2010, the Phoenix and Philadelphia branches were found to be engaging in deceptive enrollment practices and fraudulent solicitation of FAFSA funds.
It hurts to see that people of lower socioeconomic statuses are being hooked into these forms of education, because we can see through the reading "Education Trust Subprime Report" that fewer than 75% of for-profit universities' students graduate within four years. If that were a statistic displayed by a non-profit or public educational institution, no one would bother to attend.
Finally, seeing all of the student debt amassed by students after having attended a for-profit institution of higher education makes me think that these places are black holes swallowing money that will never be seen or circulated again
Moving on to "For Profit Education Bubble Burst," I will admit I was unaware that the military education benefit was going towards for-profit schools. The reading explains that only 25% or so alumni from for-profit universities were paying off their student loans, versus 45% of students from non-profit universities.
It appears to me over the long run that for-profit schools have a very conservative, neo-liberal attitude about them: run a school like a business, let each do its own thing, and the students will flourish. The only problem with this that when run as businesses, many people will try harder to gain profits than educate the people enrolled in the schools.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Post 5
I will be the first to admit I know little or nothing about environmental politics, and so this week I am definitely not on the advantageous part of the learning curve. I went to World Wildlife Foundation to see what they do for the environment, and I was surprised at how many partners they had, claiming aid to them and their cause.
My first impression of the McKenzie Watershed Council reading was to laugh. I say this because I have a friend who, one day out of the blue, decided to run for the McKenzie Watershed Council Soil Conservation Manager (not sure which zone). He did this partly for laughs, and partly because he knew he would win the election because no one ever ran for Soil Conservation Manager of that zone. Fortunately for society, he didn't make the ballot because his name didn't get submitted in time.
I love how the organization created a cleanup day with other local environmental nonprofit groups; this shows that they are willing to work with others to achieve a legitimate end, and collecting trash, cleaning culverts of debris, and cleaning camp sites is something organizations can do together.
I really enjoyed the commencement speech given by Paul Hawken to the 2009 class from University of Portland. I liked that he said that the earth couldn't send any limos or recruiters, but instead it sent beautiful jasmine and ripe cherries. Join a multitude of caring people, and your work will be rewarded with future generations being as lucky as you were.
The final article was great because I like how the authors pointed out the anti-environmental organizations operating under different auspices. I appreciate that they took the time to research each one, although some of the organizations are those that, even though legitimate, I would never support because of the pure annoyance they cause to me in everyday life. I think that many of the organizations, such as Greenpeace, could focus less of their time on getting people to pledge and instead focus on helping the earth, and their good deeds would make people want to participate.
My first impression of the McKenzie Watershed Council reading was to laugh. I say this because I have a friend who, one day out of the blue, decided to run for the McKenzie Watershed Council Soil Conservation Manager (not sure which zone). He did this partly for laughs, and partly because he knew he would win the election because no one ever ran for Soil Conservation Manager of that zone. Fortunately for society, he didn't make the ballot because his name didn't get submitted in time.
I love how the organization created a cleanup day with other local environmental nonprofit groups; this shows that they are willing to work with others to achieve a legitimate end, and collecting trash, cleaning culverts of debris, and cleaning camp sites is something organizations can do together.
I really enjoyed the commencement speech given by Paul Hawken to the 2009 class from University of Portland. I liked that he said that the earth couldn't send any limos or recruiters, but instead it sent beautiful jasmine and ripe cherries. Join a multitude of caring people, and your work will be rewarded with future generations being as lucky as you were.
The final article was great because I like how the authors pointed out the anti-environmental organizations operating under different auspices. I appreciate that they took the time to research each one, although some of the organizations are those that, even though legitimate, I would never support because of the pure annoyance they cause to me in everyday life. I think that many of the organizations, such as Greenpeace, could focus less of their time on getting people to pledge and instead focus on helping the earth, and their good deeds would make people want to participate.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Post 4
This week has been very stressful for me, because I have had some lingering health issues, so imagine my surprise when I opened my Nonprofit Nation book and started reading about nonprofit hospitals and health care providers!
I was very unaware of what Health Maintenance Organizations did and I certainly don't agree with them now. I think it is a very unjust thing to do for health care to be so hard to come by, and I like that the IRS has been locking down on nonprofit hospitals who have been stingy with their care provided to people who cannot afford it.
Making a Killing- What HMOs may mean to us
The above link is very important because I have seen things happen where health care has been delayed to the point of deteriorated health as a result. People should not have to fight with HMOs for health care- they were provided in the first place by nonprofits like Kaizer-Permanente.
I hate that it has to even be a debate as to whether we should have universal health care in the US or be able to fund military defense. I could go on for weeks (and my dad and I go at it for hours on this subject) but I'll digress and move to the Packers' article.
I hate the Packers (Niners 4 life!) but I love that their "owners" are their fans. The 49ers are owned by some complete jerks who only want to use the team to make money, not improve the franchise and win more games. I like to see that for this reason, the team has no issue with the collective bargaining agreement, because I'm pretty sick of it dominating Sports Center. The NFL should allow more teams to become nonprofit, mostly because they would make a lot more money and it wouldn't be from unfair ticket sales and taxes from the local economy that leaves the people crippled (Oakland Raiders, anybody)?. If given nonprofit status, the Niners would jettison to the playoffs for the first time in years, because the owners would not be profit-mongering people, but instead dedicated fans who won't be able to control the team 100%.
I was a little confused on the article about Detroit's attempted mergers of nonprofit and for-profit hospitals, and I think I lean a little towards the idea that this is no good. It seems to make it so that more and more people are shut out of affordable health care, even though the goals are the exact opposite.
Finally, the article about ADD had me reeling. I think many people are "diagnosed" with ADD because they want help focusing, not because they have an out-of-control disorder that disables them from interacting normally in society. In a place where Ritalin is peddled to college students so they can stay up all night and write papers, I think that more studies and research need to be done before diagnosing more people with the disorder.
I was very unaware of what Health Maintenance Organizations did and I certainly don't agree with them now. I think it is a very unjust thing to do for health care to be so hard to come by, and I like that the IRS has been locking down on nonprofit hospitals who have been stingy with their care provided to people who cannot afford it.
Making a Killing- What HMOs may mean to us
The above link is very important because I have seen things happen where health care has been delayed to the point of deteriorated health as a result. People should not have to fight with HMOs for health care- they were provided in the first place by nonprofits like Kaizer-Permanente.
I hate that it has to even be a debate as to whether we should have universal health care in the US or be able to fund military defense. I could go on for weeks (and my dad and I go at it for hours on this subject) but I'll digress and move to the Packers' article.
I hate the Packers (Niners 4 life!) but I love that their "owners" are their fans. The 49ers are owned by some complete jerks who only want to use the team to make money, not improve the franchise and win more games. I like to see that for this reason, the team has no issue with the collective bargaining agreement, because I'm pretty sick of it dominating Sports Center. The NFL should allow more teams to become nonprofit, mostly because they would make a lot more money and it wouldn't be from unfair ticket sales and taxes from the local economy that leaves the people crippled (Oakland Raiders, anybody)?. If given nonprofit status, the Niners would jettison to the playoffs for the first time in years, because the owners would not be profit-mongering people, but instead dedicated fans who won't be able to control the team 100%.
I was a little confused on the article about Detroit's attempted mergers of nonprofit and for-profit hospitals, and I think I lean a little towards the idea that this is no good. It seems to make it so that more and more people are shut out of affordable health care, even though the goals are the exact opposite.
Finally, the article about ADD had me reeling. I think many people are "diagnosed" with ADD because they want help focusing, not because they have an out-of-control disorder that disables them from interacting normally in society. In a place where Ritalin is peddled to college students so they can stay up all night and write papers, I think that more studies and research need to be done before diagnosing more people with the disorder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)